Factors Influencing Presidential Power and Public Expectations
The President has a significant advantage over other politicians because he usually represents the face of the country and creates its status in the international arena. In addition, the President can manage public sentiment because he reveals the features of the country’s national unity as part of a campaign. The President’s power can vary depending on what responsibilities the public sends to him and what is expected of him.
Americans expect more from the President than they do in other countries. I attribute this to the spirit of freedom as a characteristic of the nation, as well as the desire of the people to express themselves through the President. For most people, the President is the figure who must ensure their rights and freedoms to find prosperity as a nation. While the President’s status in the United States may not be what Americans imagine him to be, he nonetheless has enough power to ensure the country’s image. Given the President’s influence worldwide, this seems essential when choosing the country’s leader.
Judicial Independence and Political Influence in the Courts
The courts are still too subject to ideological and partisan influences. For example, in the context of the abortion ban, one can see that not all judges were impartial or had a pronounced patriotic stance. Also, most were white males and were quite radical about the national interest, which is consistent with the problem that partisanship affects the objectivity of lawmaking.
Judges cannot be apolitical, and that’s fine, but I’m not quite sure how votes about the conditional right and left parties should be distributed in such a case. A strict quota would increase democracy but violate the principle of objectivity. The absence of quotas would violate our rights and freedoms, especially for oppressed groups. Nevertheless, the current courts do not strike me as entirely apolitical, and we have work to develop an utterly impartial attitude.
Effectiveness of State and Local Governments versus Federal Authority
The responsibility for improving the quality of life lies with both the national government and local governments. Those closest to the people are the only ones who can truly understand the current situation. Many times in other countries, one can see how the national government is unaware of the devastation or the standard of living of regions far from the center.
The situation in the U.S. is not that similar, although we noticeably lack the capacity for local governments to develop and implement effective strategies to improve the quality of life. Decision-making must remain with the national government to ensure accountability. However, only local governments will be able to implement societal changes effectively.
Accountability and Control of the Bureaucracy by Political Institutions
The President is the executive branch of government, which regulates bureaucrats by imposing restrictions on their activities and through suggestions/initiatives. The apparatus of the state, in the form of the President’s administration, allows for consistency between the results and the ongoing activities of the bureaucrats. Congress and the courts have helped create legislation that protects whistleblowers/whistleblowers in the bureaucracy.
In doing so, they have increased public confidence in the law and the Constitution, which has allowed them to act through the hands of Congress to improve accountability. Bureaucratic moments go through many decision-making stages, allowing for increased credibility of the bureaucracy. Nevertheless, additional scrutiny, especially involving the public, would solve the issue of trust in official documents and their transparency.